Folks, this is a call for WG adoption, not a design exercise. If the WG
adopts the document, we will have plenty of opportunity to fine-tune or
make major changes. Such as:
On 12 Jul 2016, at 11:51, Shane Kerr wrote:
I recognize that HTTP/2 is definitely a better option because of
out-of-order replies, but I worry about requiring it. It's still quite
new and language support may be spotty. But I guess given it's
popularity this shouldn't be a huge problem, so maybe that is a
reasonable recommendation.
If this WG adopts the document and then says "but we want to use an
older version of the HTTP protocol", we should expect a fair amount of
push-back during IETF Last Call.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop